NATASHA WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred by summarily denying a post-conviction motion for jail credit without attaching record evidence to refute the claim.
The appellant sought additional jail credit against her sentence in a post-conviction motion. She provided dates and alleged jail records would suppor…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Record Attachments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Natasha Wright appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying her post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which she seeks additional jail credit against her sentence. Wright filed a facially sufficient claim for jail credit under rule 3.800 by providing the dates for which she is seeking credit, the date of her sentence, and alleging that the jail records in the county where she was sentenced would show that she is entitled to the credit sought. Swanson v. State, 825 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The trial court denied Wright’s claim for additional credit, but failed to attach any records refuting her claim.
An order denying a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion should include not only “valid reasons for the denial by the trial court, but also attachments of portions of the record sufficient to support the denial. The rule places on the trial court the obligation to attach sufficient portions of the record to refute the defendant’s claim.” Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142,1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to support its denial with record attachments or to grant the relief sought. Should the court conclude that the motion cannot be decided on the face of the record, it should deny the motion without prejudice so that Wright may file a rule 3.850 motion.
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R. B., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re T/U/W Albert Pollak v. Berkett, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 816 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Swanson v. State, 825 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Renita West v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 825 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)